text:
If flaps are used on takeoff, when should they be retracted?
If a pilot uses a notch of flaps on takeoff, when do they get retracted? At that time, what changes (i.e. climb rate, speed, pitch)?
NOTE: I have purposefully not specified the type of airplane.

The short answer is, it depends. The FAA Airplane Flying Handbook merely states that this can be performed once the aircraft has established positive climb, but does not specify exactly when.
Ultimately two situations arise:

The airplane is sufficiently large/high performance that normal operating procedures specify the use of flaps for all takeoff scenarios, in which case the manufacturer or the operator (if applicable) may well specify a flap retraction schedule, which seeks to allow the aircraft to accelerate effectively during climb out, avoid overstressing the flaps by having the aircraft fly past the maximum speed for each flap setting, while at the same time maintain a comfortable margin above stall speed.
The airplane only requires flaps for certain kinds of takeoffs such as maximum performance or soft-field efforts. In that case, procedures may be somewhat looser in defining the exact moment of flap retraction. A climb checklist, should you choose to use one, will likely mention the flap configuration as an action/verification item, so that would likely be a good moment to retract them if you haven't done so already. Personally , I usually retract them passing through 200-300 feet AGL, which usually coincides to the aircraft being at least half-way between clean configuration Vx and Vy (I've been mostly flying Skyhawks, Skylanes, Arrows, and Huskies). Whichever way you do it though, you want to avoid retracting them too low and too slow, but also forgetting about them and blowing through Vfe (which even light, slow airplanes can do quite handily).

With respect to the actual changes in aircraft behavior, you'll likely notice the following things:

A slight-nose down moment as wing's characteristics change, which influences the airflow reaching your horizontal stabilizer. The converse applies when extending flaps. Mind you, this is an airplane model-specific thing and one that seemed most noticeable to me in the Cessna family of light singles.
For the same power setting and pitch attitude, the aircraft will begin to accelerate quicker for each notch of flap retraction.
Climb rate is trickier as it is dependent on your power setting, airspeed, and pitch angle; your inputs will matter. However, generally speaking, the reduction in drag would lead to a greater difference between power available (or power set) and power required, so, all things being equal, you would likely see an increase in climb rate.

awesome answer, but could you also link the meaning of Vx/Vy/Vfe?

Vx is the best angle of climb speed, Vy is best rate of climb, Vfe is maximum speed with flaps extended, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds is a well-referenced, very comprehensive list of v-speeds

Too bad I cannot upvote twice ^^

Below is sample screen of a Boeing 777's Primary Flight Display. See those flaps marks on the speed tape?

Here's the thing: you don't want to retract the flaps from 5 to 1 when you're slower than the stall speed at flaps 1. So in terms of flaps retraction schedule, you'll:

Accelerate to (at least) the minimum speed for flaps 5 in the takeoff roll.
Pitch up really high (e.g. 12.5 degrees)
Upon reaching acceleration altitude (a.k.a. flap retraction altitude), pitch down a bit (e.g. from 12.5 to 10 degrees) and let the aircraft accelerate.
When the speed passes the "1" mark on the speed tape, set flaps 1.
When the speed passes "up" on the speed tape, fully retract the flaps.

Acceleration altitude is usually 1,000 feet or 1,250 feet. So that really steep climb right after takeoff roll lasts only about 30 seconds.

If you're flying a small aircraft, chances are you'll only use flap in a short field takeoff. The general procedure would be similar:

During takeoff roll, pitch up to Vx.
Once clear of obstacles, adjust pitch to maintain Vy.
As you adjust pitch from Vx to Vy, the aircraft accelerates. When you're confident that you're above the stall speed in clean configuration (or when you pass a manufacturer specified speed), retract the flaps.

Your points 4 and 5 of the 777 description are not quite correct: in a Boeing you already select the next stage when passing the previous maneuvering speed, if the speed is increasing (trend arrow pointing up). In your example that would mean you select flaps 1 when passing the "5" mark on the speed tape and flaps up when passing the "1".

According to a Boeing publication flaps are usually fully retracted at an altitude of about 3,000 ft.  As you probably know flaps increase lift and drag.  So as the plane increases speed (and thereby lift potential), the need for flaps decreases.  I imagine by the time a plane reaches 3,000 feet is has attained enough air speed to no longer need flaps.

Boeing is very smart on building them, but what they recommend isn't always the way that they're flown.  You'll find that 1000' is a much more typical altitude for the start of flap retraction for many airlines flying Boeing products.

No argument there.  The PDF in question mentioned full flap retraction at about 3,000 feet.  I actually meant to say something about their being retracted incrementally at some predetermined point but forgot.

Actually, that article talks about a 3000' retraction altitude, and a 1000' retraction altitude, concluding that the lower altitude saves 3-4% fuel burn (for the limited timeframe under consideration -- not the whole flight).  The advantages of the earlier retraction probably are NOT news to the major operators!

First and foremost, in light planes flaps should be retracted above VS and below VFE.
In a C172, you have:

VS 47kts Stall Speed in Clean Configuration.
VFE 139kts 10 Degrees Flap Extended, 85kts 20-30 Degrees Flap Extended.

That's a pretty wide range, so it would be hard to get it wrong, and as a matter of safety, you would probably want to use the approach multiplier of 1.3 as the minimum, which is 61.
So next question is, what is the effect of raising the flaps in a climb? Most importantly, raising the flaps decreases the angle of attack, which decreases induced drag, so raising the flaps earlier is better, so somewhere in the range of 61-71 for the Cessna.

[It has been suggested that "positive rate" should be used for flaps, but I disagree. Unlike gear, which is all drag, 10% flaps are mostly lift, with very little added induced drag. Higher flaps settings for short= and soft-field takeoffs have a different set of considerations.]

Raising the flaps increases angle of attack and leaves induced drag almost unaffected since the total amount of lift that needs to be created does not change. Only when you speed up those effects are as you mentioned.

yes, you're accellerating to Vy

I fly for a commercial airline, which is different, bit I also fly light planes and as a CFI I flight instructed in them for hundreds of hours. In a nutshell, I taught if you were in flatland areas with no terrain/obstacles to clear, retract the flaps at 300-500 feet AGL in the climbout, as long as you have adequate airspeed and are accelerating. You then have to trim nose up a bit to keep the climb rate up due to the loss of flap lift. No need to over complicate this. In mountainous terrain, or in a canyon, or on very short fields with obstacles nearby or at high altitudes where performance is degraded, pilots often elect to delay flap retraction and gain better slow speed climb performance. Depends on the situation. Hope that helps!  Fly safe and have fun!

I can't remember when I upvoted this answer, how I missed this, but could you please update your answer regarding "better slow climb performance". Flaps never improve climb perfomance, under any circumstance. I am spending hours trying to convince people believing their airplane is climbing better with flaps, and this answer is not helping :-)

Let's just start by stating that Flaps allow you to fly slower, but they generate a lot of extra drag. You are paying the price of slower speeds by using more power to fly, and also by having a reduced climb performance. This alone means that the pilot usually wants to retract the flaps to a clean configuration as-soon-as-possible. How soon that is, is a bit more complicated to answer.
For starters, you need a specific (safe) speed for each notch of flaps to be retracted. Stall speed will increase every time you retract a notch of flaps so you want to be well above that speed before putting your hand on the flaps lever.
So, in theory, the second the wheels are off the ground, you can just level off, keep flying a few feet above ground and keep accelerating until a safe speed is reached then retract flaps all the way to a clean config.
While some bush pilots might actually do exactly that, in practice there will be obstacles and terrain you might be worried about once you use up all of your available runway. For instance, most runways (unless otherwise stated) will ensure obstacle clearance for a 2.5% climb gradient.  (2.5 meters climb for every 100 meters away from runway threshold)
So, in theory, this becomes: the second the wheels are off the ground,you can continue to climb at a necessary 2.5% gradient to avoid the obstacles, speed up, then retract the flaps whenever you reach the speed that you can safely retract them.
It is the most efficient way, and it is what any pilot/aircraft/airline would do if allowed. In practice many regulations, like noise abatement, and manufacturer manual would dictate how your climb profile and flaps retraction schedule would look like:
Eg.
NADP 1 will require you to climb in t/o configuration until at least 3000 feet before beginning to accelerate and retract
NADP 2 on the other hand will allow you to start accelerating as soon as 800' AGL (while still continuing to climb at 2.5% mind you), using t/o power on the engines until 3000'

The lift flaps generate is directly proportional to speed but the drag they introduce is proportional to speed squared. Double the speed, double the lift, quadruple the drag.
As the aircraft accelerates after take-off, the extra lift generated by having the flaps extended will be countered by the extra drag generated by the increased speed so they are retracted in stages to maintain that balance.

Why was this upvoted?  It is almost entirely wrong.  The only correct thing I can see is that drag is proportional to the square of velocity.

@Simon, Could you add a little more detail. It is not obvious from your comment which bit you are confused by.

Lift is not directly proportional to speed, it is proportional to the square of the speed, as is drag (which you have correct).  Flaps are not retracted on a schedule to "maintain that balance".

You are (technically) correct, however L ~ v^2.S while D ~ v^2.C

You are (technically) correct, however L ~ v^2.S while D ~ v^2.C where S is the change in surface area and C is the change is cross section so if S goes from 2 to 3 and C goes from 2 to 4, then at speeds 2, 4 and 8, L2=8->12, D2=8->16, L3=18->27, D3=18->36, L4=32->48, D4=32->64 so as  airspeed increases, lift increases but drag increases faster.

at small aircrafts, you usually don't have any intermediate flaps setting between 10 and clean. As we know, when flaps selected, take off roll is reduced, so as the climb performance. Clean configuration increases ground distance but improves climb ability. In ideal take off, you should retract flaps at point where flaps path and clean path meet each other, to obtain best possible climb out. (you always want to be "on the upper line of diagram").
For Cessna 152 it is about 200-300ft


text:
When the brakes are checked, what do the firemen actually do?
Watching this video (at 06:58 mark), this plane had just made a mayday landing, due to a bird-strike. Because of the right engine being shutdown, it was forced to land immediately, with a full load of fuel. The added weight of the fuel, combined with loss of the additional stopping power of reverse thrust, caused the pilots to bear down on the brakes harder and longer than would be normal in an end-of-flight landing.
The pilot requests to hold on a taxi-way after vacating the runway, during which time the firemen come up to the plane to "inspect the brakes."
What do the firemen actually do when inspecting? Are they looking for fire? Glowing brake pads? Do they use an infra-red heat gauge?

Just a point of clarification, generally its not the actual brakes that catch on fire, but oils such as hydraulic fluid.  The extreme heat can can lines to sever and dump oil onto the brakes.  Hyd fluid burns around 2-3000 C.  That's a bad day.  For this reason, you don't set the parking brake after you stop with hot brakes because you will transfer the heat from the pads across the parking brake clamps and start burning things. The fire department comes out and actually measures the brake temperatures to ensure they aren't at dangerous levels and then cools them with fans.

There are specific protocols that procedurally are required to be followed. Insofar as brake inspection is concerned, it would have been obvious from the trucks that there was no brake fire. It's also obvious that there's not a major amount of smoke coming from the brakes. As they approached the landing gear, they would have smelled serious brake heating. Glowing brakes would be seen then if not sooner. A close visual inspection for very light smoke and sensing the heat coming off the brakes would give them an idea of the rate of brake vaporization. It's a subjective judgement based on what they see and feel.
As I understand it, tires that dangerously overheat will explode before melting, and that's why thermal plugs are used which melt and deflate the tire to prevent their exploding.
At a landing in Nandi, Fiji (short runway) with what turned out to be a tailwind in a 747-200 at near-max landing weight, we had to use max braking, and I called for huffers to cool things down, and of course for an inspection. I exited the aircraft as quickly as possible to see how bad things were. I was amazed and alarmed to see thick dark grey smoke pouring from the body and wing landing gear wheels. I thought we were close to having a fire. However, the ground personnel assured me that there was no cause for alarm, that the smoke was just brake vaporization that would shortly stop as they blew air on them. It did, and after refueling we departed without incident.

How did the passengers react when, after a touchy landing, the CO is the first to evacuate the plane? Serious question.

@dotancohen It was a freighter, so there were no pax, and it wasn't a matter of evacuating but rather exiting the airplane in the normal matter, which involved lowering a built-in ladder-like stairs in the floor of the upper deck down to the main cargo deck, and then out the airstairs that had been brought to the airplane as usual. Just as a matter of information, if a 747 lands at near-max landing weight at the end of a leg, it's most likely a freighter. Pax 747s rarely land anywhere near max-landing weight unless they're tankering fuel.

Thanks for the clarification, Terry. I did not mean to be indignant, and I know that for you it was not an evacuation but for any (potential) passengers it may have been the CO is leaving the craft first.

A young FO, aiming for Captain on Vulcans, was tasked to carry out high speed taxi checks.  He bimbled (technical term) down the runway at somewhere around 100 kts, stopped and turned around for another run.  100kts back down the runway and a stop at the other end.  Except it wasn't a stop.  It was a boom, boom, boom as the fusible plugs melted and left a Vulcan up to it's axles in the grass having stopped about 20 metres short of the busy A15 road which ran perpendicular to the threshold of the runway. All the old hydraulic oil made quite a nice fire.  He didn't make Captain.

Do you know why the use air as opposed to, day, water, to cool the brakes? I suppose it leaves less of a mess on the runway, but in the event there's some spark it seems safer to use water than air

@raptortech97 I really don't know the answer to that, except to say that air was what we always used. Thinking about it I would guess that the near-explosive generation of steam and shock cooling if you used water would cause problems. Air solves the problem without incurring further problems.

OK, @Simon, an Avro Vulcan, not a Star Trek one.

@raptortech97 I'm not a pilot, but from the physics perspective: 1. water could cool things too much, 2. it sprays and you don't see anything, 3. you have to carry the water, but you don't run out of air (a minor problem prbbly).

When you say "brake vaporization", are you talking about the brake fluid, or is it normal for solid components like brake pads to start vaporizing? Your answer is the only Google hit for "brake vaporization", with quotes.

@user2357112 It's the solid brake pads that smoke. As I remember, they're carbon, and the smoke is thick and dark, or at least was in that one experience I related.

Was Nandi the inspiration for the final fate of the 747 in Wrongful Act?

@Sean Now that you mention it, yes, I believe it was, certainly the description noting thick black smoke in the 3rd to the last paragraph of the last chapter. At Nadi, I was amazed at the amount and blackness of the smoke. I thought my career was over for a bit, but the ground crew said it was not an uncommon sight for them. A little bit of vaporized brake material makes a whole lot of black smoke. And in the 2nd to the last paragraph, "Duncan disliked watching airplanes burn" was a nod to my having watched a Cessna 195 burn at the Half Moon Bay airport as a boy in 1953.

@Terry: Did they ever find out how that Cessna caught fire?

@Sean I never heard what the formal determination was. The 195 had the Jacobs R-755 engine which as I remember had a history of carburetor fires. The same engine was used in the Cessna AT-17 Bobcat (the bamboo bomber so called). The standard procedure when starting them was to always have a man outside with a fire extinguisher. I saw two carburetor fires on one of them, The SOP was to cutoff the fuel but keep cranking the engine to suck the fire back into the engine. In both instances I observed that took care of the situation and no use of the fire extinguisher was required.

The firemen are looking for fire.  If a blaze does break out, they will extinguish it.
I do not know the protocol for firemen using water to cool the brakes in absence of a visible fire.  Also, it looks to me like the firemen are more interested in the right engine than the brakes.

you don't want to have the brakes catching fire at the gate while refueling

@ratchetfreak I'm guessing you don't want to have the brakes catch fire, ever.

@falstro ratchetfreak's list of times at which you don't want the brakes catching fire was not exhaustive. :-)

but it's safer to have them catch fire on a out of the way taxiway than near the gate with all the ground crew

@ratchet freak:  So there is no benefit to having one of the ground crew run up with a fire extinguisher and put the fire out, before the truck gets there?  I'm not sure the passengers would agree that a big fire out there is better than a small fire next to the gate.

@SkipMiller It can take ten minutes to taxi to the gate; the fire crews were there within seconds of the plane stopping. Why would you wait until you get to the gate before seeing if the plane was on fire?

@SkipMiller - I'm with ratchetfreak on this one. If the small fire goes big, much better to have the fire isolated from other people & fuel sources. Ground crews are not trained to run up to a brake fire with a fire extinguisher.

I believe you don't usually want to use water if it's not necessary, because the thermal shock could make tires blow up.

They are checking the right engine too because it is damaged and fire could break out there if there was leaking fuel or oil. The fire may have been blown out by blowing air while they flew and might intensify when they stop, so it is also important to check.

The tires are getting hot because of the huge amount of kinetic energy absorbed by the brakes. They also get a bit of heat from being used (friction from landing) but that's not very big: you can design a tire to take that: after all, your car tires don't get that hot from being driven on.
The brake assemblies act as heat sinks for the kinetic energy absorbed from braking: you have the whole brake assembly heating up to hundreds of degrees, even parts at 800-1,000 C. When you are moving, the air tends to stop the heat from going to the tires. And also to keep the brakes cooler by dissipating the heat. When you stop, the air isn't removing the heat, and radiant plus convective heat transfer from the brakes rapidly heat up the tires, causing the air pressure to increase. The plugs blow to prevent a uncontrolled burst. When you are moving there is no convective heat transfer, because of the air speed: as it heats it is replaced by fresh air. So there is only radiative heat transfer.
This is why tire plugs blow only when the plane is stopped, and the brakes are not being heated anymore by braking, but are actually starting to cool. The heat has to go SOMEWHERE after all, and without a constant stream of air, the tires suffer. After all, they are right next to this massive source of heat energy, at high temperatures. Is like being under a grill.
Some brakes have fans to help the cooling when the plane is stopped, but it's not a standard fit.
The landing gear is designed to prevent wheel burst (or fires) for enough time to allow the firemen to get there to either help cool the landing gear, or else extinguish any fires.
Cooling the brakes properly affects their longevity too: ideally you want them to cool slowly enough to even out any hot spots. Water cooling or even powerful fans can be problem because it can cool some parts too quickly: water mist is suggested.
If you look on the Airbus site, they have some very interesting documents for each plane: Aircraft Characteristics Airport and Maintenance Planning.
Airbus Aircraft Characteristics Airport and Maintenance Planning
There's a section that discusses what aircraft rescue and fire fighting should consider. One part discusses how they should deal with brake overheat and landing gear fire:

Also there is a plug mounted on the wheel so if the brakes heat up the plug melts, so that the tire will not burst.  This would be something they would also check.

Isn't that a matter of the tires heating up rather than the brakes?

@NateEldredge: Well, the brakes can become really hot and the tires are close enough to get heated from them too. But there is not much to check there; if the plug melts, the tire deflates completely which is pretty obvious.

source: Stack Exchange

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

sort: votes


text:
Could an EFB-based pre-flight check be automated?
Since an electronic flight bag (EFB) is basically an iPad with the right app installed, is it possible that some sort of plane-tablet connection could be formed (either wireless or wired) to automate all of most of an EFB pre-flight check? Or does aviation regulation not allow this?
This is a purely hypothetical question since I don't think any EFB app so far supports this, let alone any plane.
Clarification: I'm talking about the preflight checks that ensure that everything in the cockpit is set up correctly for takeoff. I understand that an EFB is an electronic version of the 40 pounds of paper a pilot usually needs in the cockpit. Can this preflight check be done on the EFB? And can this be automated?

What do you mean by "EFB pre-flight check" ?  Is this a checklist to prepare the EFB for flight,  an airplane checklist stored on the EFB, or something else?

I'm talking about the preflight checks that ensure that everything in the cockpit is setup correctly for takeoff. I understand that an EFB is an electronic version of the 40 pounds of paper a pilot usually needs in the cockpit. Can this preflight check be done on the EFB? and can this be automated?

An EFB could not be used for this purpose, all your suggestion would do is replicate things that are already done by EICAS (engine indication and crew alert system).  The reason for this is that "receiving", "pre-flight" and "before takeoff" checklists all involve physically moving switches.  The EFB would be unable to perform these actions (e.g. an EFB cannot select flaps 9 degrees).
What an EFB could do, if tied into the aircraft ARINC data bus, is to verify things.  Such an EFB could verify that flaps are indicating a set position and could alert us if it were not.  However, as mentioned, the EICAS already does this, and if I were to advance a thrust lever beyond taxi power I would get a master warning and a takeoff configuration EICAS message as well as an aural warning "TAKEOFF FLAPS" (EMB-145).
You also mention the bulk of paper carried as a reason for this, but this is not relevant to the checklists.  The checklist on many large airplanes is a single sheet of paper, laminated and installed in the airplane.  Some airplanes may have a few sheets, but overall checklists account for very little paperwork and they belong to the airplane, not the pilots.
Where EFBs do help with paperwork are the approach charts, which account for 75% of what I carried on any given flight.  Three 2" binders, full of nothing but approach plates.  An EFB can condense that down to a tablet, and this is where the value of the EFB is.

How large part of the pre-flight check-list is dependent on specific conditions (weight, runway length, density altitude, icing conditions etc.)? Presumably those can't be really checked, because the setting will be different each time, no?

I'm talking about the preflight checks that ensure that everything in the cockpit is setup correctly for takeoff. … Can this preflight check be done on the EFB? and can this be automated?

Yes, and No -- You can certainly have a checklist on an EFB and complete it electronically (ticking each box as you verify the task was performed), but the actual performing of the tasks is still a manual process (it has to be, even with a "Class 3 EFB" built into the aircraft: If the computer is "performing" the tasks you've verified that the computer can do them - you still have to verify that the pilot's controls all operate correctly).
As an example, I have two sets of checklists in my aircraft - a "quick reference" checklist which is a simple laminated card which looks something like the one on the left, and a detailed electronic checklist on my iPad (a "Class 1 EFB") which looks like the one on the right:

The electronic checklist is nice because it can be much more detailed (you're not limited by the size of a physical piece of paper), and you're less likely to lose your place in the list if you're going through the items as a "do-list" (rather than using it to "check" that you performed all the steps).

all_licenses: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/


text:
What flight simulator software did Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah use?
During the investigation of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370, it was revealed that Captain Zaharie Ahmad Shah had a sophisticated home-built flight simulator setup.

(article source)
What flight simulator software is he using here?

Based on the red little strip (notification bar) on the bottom of the instrument panel in the middle, it must be either Microsoft Flight Simulator or Lockheed Martin Prepar3d. The red notifiation bar is specific to Flight Simulator 2004 (FS9) and Flight Simulator X (FSX). Laminar Research's X-Plane uses a different graphics engine and would not have produced a scenery that looks like on the three outside view screens.
The source is not really quotable, but if the name and picture can be taken a proof, then Mr Shah himself writes on the X-Sim.de Forum about FS9 and FSX being used:

Elo guys,
  zaharie here.... pls to join x-sim. About a month ago I finish assembly of FSX and FS9 with
  6 monitors .... with the latest graphic card ( 2 pieces of asus 7970) on one cpu awesome view on 3 panasonic 32 in. LCD HDMI
  and 3 touchscreen Dell 21 inches for main (MCP) , center pedestal, overhead panel.
  time to take to the next level of simulation.Motion! looking for buddies to share this passion.
  Capt Zaharie Ahmad Shah
  BOEING 777 MALAYSIA AIRLINES

Answer based on own experience with all 3 simulators/publishers.

I've only ever played around with FlightGear a little bit, and I know that it is not as sophisticated as MS Flight Simulator, but I believe that it also has the red notification bar as seen in the screenshot.

If you an believe google and this is not fake, then Mr Zacharie himself writes here about FSX and FS9 being used:
http://www.x-sim.de/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=20&start=110

Just found this question, PMDG (a group that produces a 777 addon for FSX/P3D) confirmed that capt. Zaharie was one of their customers


text:
How do you enter the hold after a missed approach at Riohacha (SKRH)?
I have a question regarding this Missed Approach Procedure
Im in my final approach segment and reach DME 1.1 and the runway is not in sight so I start my Missed approach, how should it be executed?

Since I have to hold I'd start a tear drop entry turning to heading 125° and then left turn intercepting 275° course inbound. This option sounds viable to me
I first do a right 360° as charted (???) and going to the VOR and then starting probably a parallel entry into the hold. This doesn't sound viable to me

Textual description is also clear about that 360°
If it 1.) why would they chart that 360° there?

The missed approach is a climbing right turn to the VOR and then hold while climbing to 3000 ft.  The purpose of the 360 is probably to gain some altitude before entering the hold (someone with TERPS knowledge can address this).  The MSA where the hold is is 2000' and you start the missed at 390'.  The right turn will be protected starting at 390' wheras the hold is not, so you need to gain altitude before entering it.  Part of the issue here is that you can fly any entry you want, so the protected airspace for a hold (which determines its minimum altitude) is a somewhat large area.
To fly it:

Execute your missed approach items (flaps, gear, etc)
Enter a climbing right turn direct to RHC VOR.
Upon reaching RHC VOR continue to climb and fly the holding entry of your choice
Hold as published.

Absolutely.  There is nothing that would indicate that the right 360 is optional here.  Don't be the one to find out why by skipping it.

Yes. This is correct. However, the size of the protected holding area is more dependent on the high speeds that an aircraft could be flying at while entering the hold (200kts indicated). In this case, in flying the one minute outbound leg (once established, you could fly outbound a full 3.5 miles on that leg alone, and then another approx. 1.5 miles while completing the turn.


text:
Why don't commercial aircraft have drag chutes for aborted takeoffs?
We were watching the program  Air Crash Investigation and there was an episode where it was too late to abort the take-off and the pilots had to attempt to climb still but since an abort was not possible at that speed.
My 5 year old son asked and I quote: "If the brakes don't have enough power to stop at that speed, why don't they use the parachute brakes?"
So why don't big jets have drag chutes to help with emergency braking if there is some margin still, but not enough for the tyre brakes to stop safely in time?

There might be a lot of answers for this question. The first thing came into my mind about the physics is the momentum. To stop any object with 40 to 70 tons of weight speeding around 80 knots? aircraft needs a huge parachute to add to aircrafts weight :)

@tekinbeyaz Or, you know, 575 tons for an A380 at maximum take-off weight.

Some used to have them for landings, before thrust reversers were a thing. See the related Do any commercial airline models have a parachute at rear to help in landings?

The answer to this is much the same as they answer to any "Why don't airliners have [XYZ safety equipment]?"; the answer is generally along the lines of questioning whether the occurrence of such incidents (and the danger presented by them), outweigh the extra weight/certification/maintenance/cost of the equipment.
I'd argue that the danger presented by, and the relatively infrequent nature of, late aborts does not require braking parachutes to be added.
See also

Do any commercial airline models have a parachute at rear to help in landings?
Could ejector seats save lives in commercial aircraft?
Airframe parachute on commercial airlines and Why don't commercial jet aircraft have a break-apart, parachute escape system?

An A380 at maximum load weighs 575 tonnes. That would need an enormous parachute and lots of difficult engineering.
And the main difficulty is that you're talking about adding a system that's supposed to solve an extremely rare problem. At that point, however reliably you think you can engineer your solution, you have to remember that it can only be beneficial if it is more reliable than the thing it's supposed to save you from. In fact, it has to be much more reliable. Any time this parachute deploys in mid-air, everybody dies; most take-offs that occur after the plane was too fast to abort don't result in fatalities.

The chute would have to be very reliable to not deploy when it's not necessary.  But it doesn't have to be very reliable to deploy when it is necessary.  80% would already be a benefit there.  It's like airbags: they don't deploy in 0.2% of cases, but that's OK as long as they don't go off unexpectedly.

@florisla Right but reducing the number of times the system deploys when it shouldn't to extremely close to zero is the hard part. You're basically saying, "It's OK if you don't solve the 'easy' problem perfectly; you just need to nail the hard problem."

Drogue chutes have been used on many aircraft, including the Caravelle, old Learjets and Falcons, many military types, Space Shuttle, and AFAIK they haven't caused in-air crashes. I don't think it's too hard to solve the in-air problem, just fuse the structure so that if there's a load greater than reasonably expected on landing, the parachute just rips away. Compare to thrust reversers which have caused fatal crashes, and Airbus was even  trying to lose them completely on the A380.

@user71659: You don't have to fuse the parachute structure at all; even normal, regular parachute lines will reliably snap under the airloads from a deployment at cruise speed.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/


text:
When a large commercial jet touches down, is it committed to stopping?
I was reading about flight RWAF9268 earlier today when a questions popped into mind.  When a large commercial jet touches down, is it required to try and come to a complete stop?  Or is it allowed to take off again if part of the craft fails (like the braking system, for example)?  And what factors would make a pilot decide to stay one the ground, or just abort the landing?

Boldface emergency procedures are procedures that the aircrew should have committed to memory and are written in bold text.  Generally speaking, the boldface for all emergencies involving brake failures, gear failures, control failures, literally anything that involves control of the aircraft after touchdown, starts with:
If fly-away airspeed available:
1. Go-around
If fly-away airspeed unavailable:
2. Do specific airframe related items.
Emergency procedures like these will be committed to memory, and then the only problem for the aircrew to solve will be if they have enough runway remaining to get airborne again.  If they don't have enough runway remaining then usually the fix to is apply emergency brakes (if the pedals hit the floor) or use backup nose wheel steering (for a steering failure) and ride it out.
Note: use of these emergency procedures doesn't necessarily indicate a failure of an aircraft system.  If a sudden gust of wind at touchdown weathervanes the aircraft 45 degree off centerline, you can be sure the crew is checking for fly-away airspeed.

And if fly-away airspeed is available but the emergency makes going around a bad idea (for instance, a severe control failure)?

When a large commercial aircraft touches down, it is not committed to stopping.
However, it is committed to stopping when the thrust reversers are selected. This is because they take different time to stow and adding power while stowing would likely cause significant asymmetric thrust. And even if they don't, they take their time to stow and you are unlikely to have enough speed and runway when they finally do.
When thrust reverses are not selected, the pilots of course have to consider whether it is more likely that they can stop or lift-off again on the remaining runway. And they sometimes do choose to lift off. There are many incidents where planes went around after tail or even wing strikes or bounces as it's often easier to get the plane under control by adding power. But once thrust reversers are selected, stowing them again means loosing a lot of time and is risky, so go-around is considered out of question afterwards.

This is the correct answer to my knowledge, at least for Boeing jets.

+1 for mentioning that they are committed to stop when reverse thrust is selected. This seems to be the relevant factor in the case cited by the OP. Reverse thrust was selected in that incident (twice, actually,) though the reversers didn't actually deploy. It does seem like violating that rule would probably have been the best decision in this case, though, since it seems that the crew was aware that the reversers weren't deploying and they were still near touchdown speed even when they overran the end of the runway.

This answer (and the comment from @reirab) do speak very well to RWAF9268.  But really that was just an example of a situation, not the question.  (I only mention this to explain why I'm not marking this as the answer, even though I did vote it up because it's useful to know.)

@JayCarr This is the answer to the question. The line between having the option to go-around and being committed to stop is thrust reverser selection. At least in all the Airbus and Boeing operating manuals I have. It has nothing to do with your example situation, this is purely answering the question.

@DeltaLima - What about runway length?  Brake effectiveness?  Runway grip (v. say, hydroplaning)? Current speed?  Current weight?  Not to be contradictory (because I know both you and Jan have a lot more experience than I do), but I have to think there's more to it than just "Have the reverses been selected".  It explains why RWAF9268 decided to try and complete the roll out, but there may be other cases where that's not the deciding factor.

@JayCarr, the risk associated with retracting thrust reversers while adding power for  a go-around is deemed unjustifiable high. When they don't retract fully, or not at the same time causing the aircraft to yaw then the effect is likely catastrophic. So the rule is when thrust reversers are selected, you are committed to land.  Of course rules can be broken in emergencies and in hindsight any action that turns an emergency into a good outcome is justifiable. But fact is that breaking rules more often leads to catastrophe than it is preventing it.

Technically the elements that you name (rwy length, grip, a/c weight & speed) of course matter. But it is impossible for a pilot to accurately balance those factors while the aircraft is speeding down the runway. The options have to be considered before landing. When the wheels are on the ground the decision is made, stop or go-around. If it is stop, then TRs are selected. If you can't stop in time with TR, then stowing them again and then applying full power (quite a number of seconds get lost in the process) will unlikely bring you back in the air in time.

"There are many incidents where planes went around after tail or even wing strikes or bounces as it's often easier to get the plane under control by adding power."  Including at least one case where the plane managed to go around after a very hard landing... and then crashed.

No, when an airliner touches down, it is not committed to stop.
However, a go around after touchdown is not an easy task and sometimes can be very dangerous. A hypothetical situation is discussed here which is similar to Flight 9268 which you mentioned.
Compared to a landing, more runway is required for a takeoff. After the touchdown, pilots have very little time to decide to take off again if they cannot stop. Fortunately1, most of the time, this decision is made very quickly. However, if an airplane is slowed down below the minimum safe go-around speed, there will (or may2) not be enough runway remaining to take off again. Therefore, pilots should accept a runway overrun, as it is probably a lesser evil.
To take off after a touchdown, there are several very important factors to consider. They include:

Remaining runway
Probably the most important factor.
If airplane is at or above minimum safe go-around speed, or can achieve with enough runway remaining
Actual touchdown point
Density altitude
Wind
Pilot reaction time (decision time)
Inertia of the airplane
Time required to configuration change

1: In cases when the pilots decide to abort the landing, they decide it within the first few seconds of touchdown. I found a video of this (and this one) showing the airplane took off very quickly when aborting the landing (after the wheels touched down). Most of the time, they abort the landing before touchdown, when the gears are just a few feet off the ground (as seen here and here).
2: This depends on runway length.

I respectfully disagree.  Landing at full flaps, your takeoff roll at max power (super light on gas) is going to be substantially less than what was initially required on takeoff.  If you had an emergency right after touchdown you could be airborne in just a few thousand feet.

@RhinoDriver I suspect you are talking about short field takeoff, and my comment that a takeoff requires more runway than landing. I did mention what you stated, but without going into details which you specified. :)

A short field takeoff is much different than a go-around after touchdown.  One assumes a starting airspeed of 0 IAS, the assumes a starting airspeed of around 130 IAS.  Once the decision is made to go-around on deck it is much the same as a short-field takeoff, but the initial parameters, less fuel weight, much greater airspeed, etc all work in favor of the go-around.  The only variable that is hard to judge is spool-up time.

For whatever reason I misread your answer as "no, they can't go around", not as " no, they are not committed to landing", I understand what you're saying now!  +1

A categorical no is incorrect. There are indeed situations where the aircraft can go around after touchdown. Going around on CATIIIA (and on a bad day CATII minima) will have the aircraft touch down before the go around is initiated, even if TOGA is pressed before touch down. Also, in the case of a bounced landing, a go around is still an available and often the better option.

@RhinoDriver I updated my answer. I said no to the question in the title, but I agree that it was not clear.

@Waked I added some clarification so that we are on the same page.

@Farhan if you could expand a bit on "Fortunately, most of the time, this decision is made very quickly."  I can probably mark this as the answer.  The linked article did a pretty good job of explaining how a pilot can determine what factors help to determine if you can stop once you touch down, but it would be nice to have a summary of what sorts of factors go into that decision in the actual answer...

@JayCarr I've updated my answer. Please let me know if you think the changes are sufficient.

@RhinoDriver Doing a go-around with full flaps would take a LOT more runway than a normal takeoff with flaps at the normal takeoff / go-around setting.  :-)

I'm wondering if maybe you should be incorporating Jan Hudec's answer regarding engine reversing?  It sounds like that's at least on case where it's pretty cut and dried...not including it makes this answer feel incomplete.  Not sure if that's kosher though...gonna put a question on Meta: http://meta.aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/1648/how-to-properly-combine-answers-or-is-it-proper-at-all

@Lnafziger Interesting, does this include the increased lift at flaps full, or is the drag on larger aircraft too large a penalty to make it worth it?  All the aircraft I've flown have had substantially reduced T/O speeds with flaps full (resulting in impressive short field like performance) on a go-around.  In the super hornet you can expect to be airborne (or at a minimum in ground effect) at 100kts if you put the stick in your lap.  This is perhaps 30-40kts slower than the actual approach speed.

@JayCarr My opinion was that adding something from Jan's answer isn't the right thing to do, as his understanding about thrust reversals is more than mine. But I glad that you think the same way (as evident from your meta post).

@RhinoDriver In most transport category aircraft, it is virtually impossible to takeoff with full flaps due to the large drag increase that they incur.

@Lnafziger Wow, you learn something new every day

The link to your hypothetical situation is broken.


text:
How much does pilot technique affect brake life?
Anecdotally I have heard of various things that I can do to make steel brakes last longer before they have to be replaced, and they make sense but how much does it really help?
Things that I have heard:

Land at the minimum recommend speed
Use maximum reverse thrust (if you have it)
Delay braking after landing (if on a sufficiently long runway) to allow slowing before brake application
Various taxi techniques (taxi on one engine, don't ride the brakes, but instead build up speed and then brake to slow down.  Rinse and repeat.)

Are there any studies that have been done to show how much these things help and whether or not it makes a measurable difference?

Surely it's going to come down to using them less. It would be interesting to find a study on taxi techniques and such. It would seem common sense that allowing the airplane to slow on it's own would reduce wear on the brakes although I do also wonder if it is better to use the brakes all at once or to draw it out over a longer interval(s). I'm sure temperature is huge factor in wear and effectiveness of braking.

@p1l0t I'm sure as well that they will all help. I'm just wondering how much it helps and whether or not it's worth it!  Another big factor would be the type of brakes (carbon fiber or steel) but let's stick to steel brakes for this one.

It seems like it often comes down to safety-vs-cost tradeoffs, much like hypermiling! :)

@egid Not all of them, but delaying braking could come down to that, depending on the length of the runway -vs- runway available!

Yeah, exactly. 'Land slower' doesn't sound all that great either ;)

@egid Well only if you interpret that as landing slower than recommended.  Maybe I should have said "not carrying extra speed", lol.

@Lnafziger my favorite uninformed soundbite from a tv-series by a worried wife: "fly slow and low, honey!".

Interestingly Boeing says that the taxi technique you should use depends on what type of brake linings are installed on your aircraft (all the way at the bottom).

@voretaq7 I actually mentioned that earlier in these comments.  I'll add to the question that I'm looking for information specific to steel brakes.

I can't speak to techniques for for larger aircraft like the ones you're describing (reverse thrust, etc.), but for light GA aircraft one of the best things you can do to extend the life of your brakes is to not use them for directional or speed control during taxi1.
Most aircraft brake linings are "heat glazed" as part of their initial conditioning, and the heat from normal use (slowing down after a landing) maintains that glaze, but light brake use wears away the glaze on the surface of the brake linings, which reduces brake effectiveness and increases wear.
As far as landings go, I was always taught to use "aerodynamic braking" as much as possible (keeping the yoke back on the landing rollout). I don't know how much it helps with brake wear, but I find I don't need to be on the brakes as long, and anything that reduces the amount of time the linings and discs are rubbing on each other is probably saving a few millimeters of wear.

1 – Obviously safety is paramount here - if you're on a downhill taxiway you might have to ride your brakes unless you can get reverse thrust from your engine(s). Also on planes where differential braking is your sole means of directional control while taxiing just try not to drag the brakes the whole time you're moving.

While I too am sure that it will help (as I stated above), my actual question is "How much will these techniques help?" I have updated the post title to be more clear.


text:
Is there a relationship between control surface deflection and a particular turn radius or bank angle?
I am making a project which includes automation of aileron, rudder and elevator deflection.
Is there a quantifiable relation which can tell me the amount of deflection required for any radius of turn if the other parameters are put constants.

There is no direct or quantifiable relation between aileron deflection and a given radius of turn.

Note that it is possible to maintain a banked turn with ailerons moving the opposite direction. This happens quite often in gliders where the pilot wants to tightly circle a thermal but does not want the aircraft to roll further so an opposite aileron input is made to maintain the turn.

You need the ailerons only to bank the aircraft; once the bank angle is reached, the aileron deflection is mostly close to zero. I assume we are talking about stationary turns, so speed and aircraft mass will not change significantly over the duration of the turn.
While turning, several moments need to be balanced to keep the roll angle constant, and a good design does this without requiring aileron input:

The rotation around the vertical axis causes more airspeed over the outer wing, increasing its lift. This causes a rolling moment into the turn.
The rotation around the vertical axis causes a sideslip condition at the vertical tail which causes a yawing moment against the turn.
The inertial forces try to pull the wings level. This causes a rolling moment against the turn.

However, the elevator needs to be held at a slightly more negative angle than in level flight to pull the required load factor $n_z$. In a turn, the load factor is proportional to the bank angle $\Phi$:
$$n_z = \frac{1}{cos \,\Phi}$$
Radius $R$: $$R = \frac{v^2}{g\cdot tan\,\Phi}$$
Angular velocity $\Omega$ (rad/sec): $$\Omega = \frac{v}{R} = \frac{g\cdot tan\,\Phi}{v}$$
The amount of elevator deflection needed depends on the stability margin (expressed as $\frac{c_{m\alpha}}{c_{L\alpha}}$) of the airplane, its pitch damping (expressed as $c_{mq}$) and elevator effectiveness (expressed as $c_{m\eta_H}$).

once the bank angle is reached, aileron deflection is mostly close to zero This will depend on the aircraft's stability about the longitudinal axis. If the OP is looking for precise measurements, he may need to take into account aileron inputs to maintain a bank.

The load factor formula is only true for level flight. A 60° bank may have a load factor of 1 in the right conditions.

@JonathanWalters … which would be a 60° dive. Yes, possible, but then acceleration in flight direction will be far from zero, so speed will change rather quickly. This is no stationary turn at all.

No, it needn't be a dive. As you point out, airspeed will certainly change, but all this could be accomplished in a climbing turn.

@JonathanWalters: yeah, right, a climbing turn with 60° bank. How realistic! If you have that power, why not climb straight up? If you don't, the turn will not last long. The key is "stationary" here!

Yes, I see you added "stationery turn" to your answer; good. A pull up to Vy from cruise ending with a bank to 60° is very possible in a 2000 lb aircraft with 150 hp. It doesn't take a lot of engine power, it's just a matter of energy management.

@JonathanWalters: In that pull-up with the 150 hp airplane, how much climb angle will you manage? The pitch rate is not fast enough to allow you to get anywhere near 60° before you run out of energy. 10° or 15° is maybe realistic - and guess how many gs you need to bank to 60°? Maybe it feels like 60° climb to you, but it certainly isn't.

I think you may be misunderstanding the maneuver I am describing. I am not talking about a steady state climb and turn. I am talking about an actual maneuver involving an instant with a positive rate of climb, a 60° bank, and a load factor of 1. The engine need not be running. Do believe me, I actually fly the things. I know the difference between 15° and 60° of bank.

Yes there is a relationship between control surface deflection and bank angle, but it is a complicated one, with a feedback loop, aerodynamic forces and inertia, double integrators, transformation from aircraft to earth axes etc.
Since it is a dynamic relationship, it is best characterised by the response to a step input. Start with control wheel at 0, set a sudden deflection at let's say wheel 30 deg for 5 seconds, then briskly return wheel to zero. Meanwhile, measure the aircraft bank angle response. This is the way that the flight dynamic model in flight simulators are tuned.
There is more information on this link (figure 5), although that explanation considers roll rate. In order to get to bank angle you need another integrator and axes transformation.
An autopilot will compare actual bank angle with a setpoint, and vary control wheel input until the required bank angle is reached. You may find source code examples in open source simulator programs such as FlightGear.

Aileron deflection affects your roll rate, but you can roll rapidly or slowly to whatever chosen angle of bank... and the angle of bank (along with true airspeed) is what determines your turn rate and radius. (Assuming a coorinated turn.)
Depending on various parameters, some small amount of rudder and elevator deflection may be necessary to maintain coordinated level flight once established in the turn, and depending on the aircraft, you may need some rudder input while the ailerons are deflected.  That's all pretty well specific to whatever aircraft you're modeling.  In a swept-wing jet, significant rudder deflection is not required (and what little deflection is needed is often provided by the yaw damper rather than the pilot), while in a long-winged glider with considerable adverse yaw, adding a fair bit of rudder along with aileron is required for coordinated flight.

This answer brings to light some of the difficulties encountered in solving the question, but contains several statements that, in their current state of isolation, are inaccurate. 1) Aileron deflection does not give you roll rate on it's own; airspeed and other factors are also determinants. 2) Bank angle and true airspeed alone do not determine turn rate or radius; coordination/rudder input is also determining factors. 3) In a swept-wing jet rudder input is generally still needed in executing a coordinated roll and turn.

@JonathanWalters: Believe it or not, but if you fly a coordinated turn, bank angle and true air speed do give you enough information to accurately calculate turn rate.

@PeterKämpf Re-read my comment; I am pointing out exactly that: coordination is imperative to that calculation's accuracy. As you probably know, if you fly in a slip a bank angle of 20° may result in exactly zero turn rate regardless of true airspeed.

Probably the relevant answer as a pilot: No
What you want to achieve is most probably more complex, flying a certain curve depends on so many things and is a dynamic process.
True answer as a physicist: Yes, of course
Whenever you have a given situation with the exact same parameters (as you described, all other parameters are put to constant, including wind, power, airspeed, density, etc.), you will end up with the same turn radius. It's deterministic...
Problem: Your premise of holding the other parameters constant is unrealistic
Combining the two: You never fly a curve, like the second answer suggests, where you have "a certain deflection" of the aileron, but change it during the turn to start and stop it as well as during the curve because you never have all the other parameters constant. You use, within other things, the rudder to compensate for other, changing parameters. So the question is, are you interested in making a whole turn (look at the first answer) or do you only care about the artificial steady state (second answer)?
Actually, I think your problem has been solved already by a lot of autopilots... I'd recommend to have a look at the state-of-the-art implementation of those.


text:
How often is the exterior of airliners cleaned?
Do airlines such as American Airlines or Emirates clean their planes regularly?
If so, how regularly? After every flight or at scheduled maintenance points?
How long does this activity take? Do they apply any wax or polishing to the plane?
I am interested in the general upkeep of the exterior of the plane and what major commercial airlines do to upkeep their planes.

If you've ever flown commercially you would know that the planes are not washed regularly. The windshields are cleaned periodically but I think the planes are only washed if extremely dirty during A Checks or B Checks. Most aircraft really don't get that dirty unless its smaller aircraft flying into unimproved strips.

This answers the "do they?" question.

related: how often are they painted


text:
What are the continued education requirements for commercial / airline pilots?
Out of curiosity (I am not a pilot, but do enjoy watching this aviation forum).
Question: What are the continued education requirements for commercial / airline pilots?

Per FAA rules (if that exists)
If you are a commercial pilot, do you spend more time than mandated learning?
What percentage would you estimate is spent in simulators vs textbook / classroom (if applicable)?

@JonathanWalters: I clarified the question. That is complex! Could you give a rough idea for a caption, on a middle of the road airline, flying a jet?

This question is difficult to answer comprehensively as the continuing education requirements are complex and varied. The complexity is because the continuing education requirements are mandated by multiple parties (the FAA, insurance companies, clients, and employers) and depend on the regulations the flight is conducted under (14 CFR 91, 121, 135, 137, etc.), the type of aircraft operated (single engine, multi-engine, turboprop, jet), and the pilot's role in the operation (PIC, SIC).
Note that both the Commercial and Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) license are good for life, unless revoked or surrendered. Any continuing education requirements are to retain the employment or the privileges of exercising the license, unlike CE requirements for licenses in some industries.
In very broad brush strokes, most professional pilots will be required to complete a flight proficiency check, either in an actual aircraft, or in a simulator, every 6 to 12 months. The amount of time will vary for such checks, but 3 hours might be typical. This proficiency check will be accompanied, in some cases, with a written or oral examination. In addition to this, insurance may require an aircraft systems class and simulator brush up session every 12-24 months. Such training is usually accomplished in 3-6 days, including roughly 12-24 hours of lecture/bookwork, and 6-10 hours of simulator time.
In addition to the flight and systems training, pilots employed by air carriers will generally be required to receive instruction on operational aspects of their operation, including such topics as RVSM, hazardous materials, weather, physiology, as well as many others. Such training is often self-paced, computer based training (CBT). I would estimate the time commitment for this training to be 20-40 hours annually.
In addition to the required training and testing, many pilots choose to spend additional time studying aviation related topics. Such topics may include all those alluded to above, as well as other topics. Examples of such study would be changes to company operational procedures, brushing up on checklist memorization, FAA advisory publications, and areas of interest outside of normal operations, such as international operations. Speaking personally, I probably spend roughly 10 hours a week in what could be considered aviation related study or learning. I also often see other pilots at my company studying various aircraft or operational manuals, and our company keeps a collection of articles, FAA advisories, and other publications related to our operation with the intent that pilots voluntarily study these materials as they have time. Bear in mind that a pilot's life often involves a great deal of waiting, a task which often lends itself to reading and study.

Excellent answer. Thank you, Jonathan.

14 CFR 61.56 - Flight review deals with continued education of pilots. According to it,

(c) Except as provided in paragraphs (d), (e), and (g) of this section, no person may act as pilot in command of an aircraft unless, since the beginning of the 24th calendar month before the month in which that pilot acts as pilot in command, that person has -
(1) Accomplished a flight review given in an aircraft for which that pilot is rated by an authorized instructor and
(2) A logbook endorsed from an authorized instructor who gave the review certifying that the person has satisfactorily completed the review.

where,

a flight review consists of a minimum of 1 hour of flight training and 1 hour of ground training.

The pilot may use a simulator for this purpose provided it meets certain conditions:

(i) A flight simulator or flight training device may be used to meet the flight review requirements of this section subject to the following conditions:
(1) The flight simulator or flight training device must be used in accordance with an approved course conducted by a training center certificated under part 142 of this chapter.
(2) Unless the flight review is undertaken in a flight simulator that is approved for landings, the applicant must meet the takeoff and landing requirements of § 61.57(a) or § 61.57(b) of this part.
(3) The flight simulator or flight training device used must represent an aircraft or set of aircraft for which the pilot is rated.

FAA 14 CFR 61.58 - Pilot-in-command proficiency check deals with continued education for operation of an aircraft that requires more than one pilot flight crew member.

Downvote because most commercial and airline pilots, excepting those who fly under part 91, are exempt from the requirements for a flight review.

Let me detail my statement: All part 135 and 121 pilots are required to pass a proficiency check either every 6 or 12 months. This exempts them from the requirement of a flight review. See § 61.56 (d)(1).  The flight review requirements of § 61.56 generally only apply to commercial pilots who fly under part 91 or 137 and do not fly multi-crew aircraft or jets.


text:
How to become Hybrid airship Pilot?
Are Hybrid Airship pilot different from other aircraft or helicopter pilot?

By "hybrid airship" do you mean something like the V-22 or are you talking about some kind of lighter-than-air ship?

Hybrid airship on Wikipedia, e.g. Hybrid Airship from Lockheed Martin.

Like Lockheed Martins' Blimp (https://www.lockheedmartin.com/us/products/HybridAirship.html)

Yes, they are different.  A hybrid airship has the characteristics of an airship, but it also generates lift based on its aerodynamic shape (like a powered aircraft wing).
The FAA defines an airship as having both "Lighter than Air" and "powered aircraft" characteristics.  A hybrid airship falls under the characteristics of an airship, in this sense.  However, as with any aircraft, a specific type rating may be required for a hybrid airship.
Therefore, the path to certification as a pilot of a hybrid airship will likely be very similar to, but distinct from, a typical pilot.  In particular, it may be added on as a rating to an existing pilot certificate.
https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/test_standards/media/FAA-S-8081-18.pdf

@FlightTestFact is right, obtaining a pilot's license for a hybrid airship would require similar but different training. It would be much like earning a pilot's license and adding a type rating for a particular aircraft. The only trouble is that the FAA defines airships as "near-equilibrium". The buoyancy ratio for a hybrid airship may be lower than "near-equilibrium", but the FAA doesn't offer much guidance for any applicable type certificates for these cases (yet).


text:
Do military transport aircraft engines rely on the same supply chain as the civilian version?
I know that some military transport aircraft share the same engine as civilian aircraft, e.g., the TF39 used in C-5A was called CF6 in the civilian market.
When the manufacturer makes the plane, do the engines they procure for military aircraft come from the same production line as the civilian engines or do they establish separate lines and manufacturing/certification processes?
My question was connected to what engine procurement for the Embraer C390 would look like. It uses the V2500-E5 engine, which is almost the same as the popular V2500-A5 engine.

Usually what you see is the "civilianized" version of the military engine has been modified to achieve cost improvements or maintainability improvements.
For example, the military version may come as a left hand and right hand engine right up to the complete assembly (engine build unit), making the engines mirror images of each other.
For the civilian version, this is a big hassle because an engine spares stock needs to include a minimum number of left and right engines. Way less spares stock is needed if the engine build unit is universal, so you will see the engines with as many components as possible mounted all the same way, and left right accommodations are incorporated at the late stage of the build, or in the interface with the aircraft.
So the military version might have a component that points left for the left side engine and right for the right side engine, whereas for the civilian version, all of the engines have that component on the left side, and the extra plumbing is designed into the aircraft interface to accommodate mounting the engine on the opposite side.


text:
Can a Pilot hold multiple foreign licenses and practice the privileges of it in each country?
Is it possible for a CASA CPL holder to convert to both an FAA and CAAUK license and hold all three at the same time?
Would the pilot then be qualified to exercise the privileges of the CPL in Australia (with a CASA registered aircraft), USA (With an FAA registered aircraft), and the UK (With a CAAUK registered aircraft)?

Yes, a pilot can hold multiple licences from different authorities, but it's not about operating in a country. A license from an authority applies to aircraft registered with that authority, wherever that aircraft is in the world.
An FAA license lets you operate an N registered aircraft anywhere in the world, it does not let you operate a foreign registered aircraft on American soil unless that foreign authority gives permission to do so.

There is no confusion @Samuel, I'm answering your question.

But does the training for those licenses have to be started from scratch or can they be converted?

It depends @Samuel. That question has been asked on this site before, you might want to search on the word convert. I'd look myself for you but I'm not in a position to at the moment, hopefully some of the helpful people on this site will comment with some links - hint hint!

Your last statement is incorrect: an FAA certificate is valid for a foreign aircraft in the US. See this question

Not by default @Pondlife, you have to get permission from the foreign authority.

Actually, Pondlife is correct, as long as it remains within U.S. airspace and does not operate internationally.  Within our borders, FAA rules apply, and the answer that Pondlife linked to includes the appropriate regulation.

That might be okay with the FAA, but not the foreign authority @Lnafziger. There may be nothing they can do about it but that isn't the question.

@GdD Well, the question wasn't about this aspect either, it was just about holding the licenses and operating aircraft within their respective countries.  Since your last sentence is apparently causing some disagreement, I'd suggest considering removing it (since it wasn't an aspect that was asked about anyway), and bringing the discussion to the question to which Pondlife linked so that we can (hopefully) come to a definitive answer, over where that exact question was asked.


text:
What is required for transatlantic flight in a private plane?
What equipment is required to fly a small plane across the Atlantic via Canada, Greenland, and Iceland? Is any additional training required beyond an ordinary pilot certificate? Can it be done in VFR flight?

Detailed knowledge of geography, airports where you can land along the way etc. I am not an expert but these things came to my mind.

how about "enough fuel!"

True. In fact, for flights leaving Canada you are required to have 10% more fuel than the normal IFR requirements.

While probably legal to fly over the Atlantic VFR, it appears getting out of Canadas airspace is a different matter. After a bit of googling I found this article on COPA's website, saying:

Both for flying in the northern parts of Canada as well as in
  Greenland airspace, an ADF is legally required (refer to TC AIM
  3.16.10 and CAR 605.18). I didn’t have one, so one had to be installed. Other than that, FDOW didn’t need any modifications. IFR
  approved GPS is an absolute must; we had three GPS receivers on board.
Speaking of IFR: As per CAR 602.19, pilots attempting trans-oceanic
  flight must hold an instrument rating. Even though an IFR flight plan
  is only required above 5,500 feet across the Atlantic, NavCanada will
  not issue an oceanic VFR clearance when leaving Canada. In addition,
  it is extremely unlikely for any airplane to stay in VMC during the
  whole trans-Atlantic flight. Therefore, it’s mandatory that both,
  pilot and airplane are certified and current IFR.

That being said, weather over the Atlantic can be very treacherous, especially if you're unable to climb on top.
There are quite a few stories around about crossing the Atlantic in smaller airplanes, there's also an Ice Pilots NWT episode (season 1 episode 9) where they ferry two water-bombers to Turkey, although not very technical, it's a nice watch.

I did a crossing in a Beech Bonanza in mid-july; even during that month I picked up ice. I wouldn't cross VFR unless you had a lot of time sitting around iceland waiting for a large high pressure system to stumble your way. As an example faroe was clear when I arrived and the control folks said the sky hadn't been clear in 20,days; so I got a nice clear day of sight seeing. Bergen was socked in IFR with ice, so I was delayed even having IMC capable plane and CMEL-IR... The weather systems are smaller up north, and they tend to linger it seems.

What kind of icing? Induction, instrument, or structural?


text:
Wingtip landing light lenses are hazed - what can I do to make them clear again?
I have wingtip landing/taxi lights on my plane.  They have acrylic covers to protect the bulbs.  They have started to haze over time, similar to the effect of car headlights.  I am wondering if anyone has experienced this and can provide information on how to correct this issue.  I feel as if this might be affecting the ability of the bulbs to direct light on the runway/taxiway efficiently.  I am starting to eye some of the cleaners that say they can correct this in the automotive aisle, however I am very hesitant.  I don't want to buy new covers, as I am sure there is a better/cheaper option.

The kits in the automotive store do work quite well for clearing up headlamps (having used them a few times on my car and my parents.)  But I'm not sure if the covering on a plane is the same material, or if perhaps it's against some FAA regulation regardless of material...

Someone recently pointed out that they were able to clear the acrylic covers on their automobile headlights by spraying them with "Off!" insect spray. While the lenses did look very clear, I happen to know that "Off!" will also dissolve wood varnish, so I would not recommend using it without some preliminary experimentation. When I was in Southeast Asia, I used to douse myself with this stuff regularly until I noticed how it would eat into plastics, and began spraying in on my fatigues instead.

If the acrylic covers are hazed or scratched, and you are sure that they are acrylic, not Lexan or polycarbonate, I would recommend looking into polishing out the defects with rubbing compound. Such a process is often used in restoring windscreens or windows. See this page to get started. Personally I would avoid "cleaners" that purport to do this.

In the interests of full flight safety, I'd think the best thing to do would be to have the covers replaced.

The hazing is a collection of very small scratches on the acrylic, and the way to remove them is to actually remove a thin layer of the acrylic - the trick is to make sure you use something that won't damage any of the paint/metal around the cover.
A mild acrylic polish is your best bet, although any mild abrasive will work (including non-"sensitive" toothpaste and a paper towel... although it might take a while!). There are plenty of "Perspex cleaner" style products for a reasonable price to do it.
Use a small amount (multiple small applications are better for controlling the spread) and try to use a thicker "paste" type of abrasive rather than a runnier one, for the same reason. Apply a small amount and some fairly firm pressure with a cloth, as per the instructions of the cleaner, removing any excess regularly.
If you think there are deeper scratches than just a very fine "hazing" on the lens, you can use a fine sandpaper (eg 1600 grit) to sand the acrylic first before using the polish

Before using any produce you should test it out on a small corner of the surface

Yeah that bears mentioning, thanks

When I was in the Air Force, there was something specified for this kind of maintenance, but I have no idea what it was. Sorry.

I imagine that even 1600 grit sandpaper would be likely to leave a haze. To polish something to an optical finish, you need something like jeweler's rouge. Look into how optical mirrors and lenses are polished.

Is it possible to remove cover and rub it somewhere far from metal?

@HowardMiller the sandpaper is to remove deeper scratches if needed, and will add a very thin haze itself which you removed with a much milder abrasive. It's an additional step if necessary


text:
How can a part 91 operator gain authorisation from the FAA to perform RNAV (RNP AR) approaches?
How would an individual pilot operating under Part 91 in a light aircraft with a future "glass cockpit" setup (maybe Garmin will add it to the G2000?) capable of coding and flying RNAV (Area Navigation) and RNP (Required Navigation Performance) approaches with the necessary precision and accuracy (incl. Radius to Fix legs) go about gaining authorization to fly them?  Or would such a system require a blanket authorization from the FAA that says that "all users of such-and-such system flying under Part 91 are authorized to fly RNP approaches using the procedure in the system manual"?

I have no practical experience with FAA RNP AR authorization but the guidelines for obtaining RNP AR authorization from the FAA are described in FAA Advisory Circular 90-101A (FAA PDF). The whole process to go through is described in that document. It specifically mentions Part 91 and Part 91K (fractional ownership) so it should be possible to obtain permission for individual pilots.
However, it will not be easy for an individual pilot to meet the requirements.
You will have to perform a high number of RNP AR approaches under a provisional authorization in VMC or increased minima before final authorization is granted.
Luckily the FAA made provision for operators with a small fleet:

NOTE: In unique situations where the completion of 100 successful
  approaches could take operators an unreasonably long period of time
  due to factors such as a small number of aircraft in the fleet,
  limited opportunity to use runways having appropriate procedures,
  etc., consideration of a reduction in the required number of
  approaches will be on a case-by-case basis. The FSDO/CHDO will
  coordinate with FAA HQ in consideration of an operator’s request for
  reduced interim authorization requirements.

You will need to arrange proper training:

Initial training: With no prior RNP AR approach experience,
  each pilot
  must complete at least four RNP AR approach
  procedures: two as pilot
  flying and two as pilot
  monitoring.These four RNP AR
  approaches shall employ the uni
  que AR characteristics of the
  operator’s approved procedures (i.e., RF legs, RNP missed). You must fly two approaches to the DA and two approaches must result in an RNP missed approach procedure. Two of the above approaches will include interrupted approaches resulting in one approach with vectors to resume the approach and one approach resulting in a hold at an initial approach fix (IAF) or transition
  fix.

And in addition to the a qualifying aircraft the operator must have a program to ensure data the navigation database stays up to date and is of sufficient quality.
You will also need to implement a monitoring program to review your RNP AR approaches and detect any negative trends. Results from this program will need to be shared with the FAA on a monthly basis.


text:
What is the behaviour of ILS when there is an unmodulated interfering carrier signal?
Let us assume we have a localizer (identifier I-STK) transmitting at 110.10MHz and a matching glideslope at 334.40MHz.  If a device aboard an aircraft tracking the I-STK ILS were to emit an unmodulated interfering carrier on either of those frequencies that is then picked up by the ILS receiver's antennae, with enough power to render the LOC or G/S signal unreceivable, would the pilots see a consistent wrong indication, erratic/wildly changing indications, or a FAIL flag?  Would the behavior under this circumstance differ between glass and round-dial aircraft cockpits?  Also, would the ILS Morse identifier be rendered unreceivable before or after the cockpit indications fail?

Is this an electronics question, a thought experiment or something else?  The power needed to transmit from inside the Faraday cage which is the aircraft fuselage would be very significant.  Since you also mention unmodulated carrier only, I doubt there would be any affect except to reduce the signal to noise ratio since the signals are additive.

@Simon I believe the OP is asking the behavior of ILS receivers/cockpit indicators when an invalid signal is received.

@kevin -- exactly.

If an invalid single is received, then it must be modulated since it is only by measuring the modulation, that the receiver knows if the signal is valid and where it is relative to the localiser and glideslope.  An unmodulated carrier on the same frequency is additive.  An unmodulated carrier on a different frequency will not affect the receiver (ignoring possible harmonics of course).  I suppose that if you could increase the power enough, an unmodulated signal would cause the signal to noise ratio to drop so low that the failure flag would show.

If an invalid signal is received, then it must be modulated since it is only by measuring the modulation, that the receiver knows if the signal is valid and where it is relative to the localiser and glideslope. An unmodulated carrier on the same frequency is additive.
An unmodulated carrier on a different frequency will not affect the receiver (ignoring possible harmonics of course).
I suppose that if you could increase the power enough, an unmodulated signal might cause the signal to noise ratio to drop so low that the failure flag would show.


text:
What do airlines do with planes at the end of a multi-stop route?
The question's kind of broad and simple, so let me be a little more specific. Take Southwest Airlines flight WN3223. This is a multi-stop, trans-continental route that starts at LGA in the morning, flies to DAL, then PHX, LAX, OAK and finally SEA with expected arrival times usually around 10:00 PM. This route runs daily.
Now, according to Flight24, sometimes the same tail number is used for the flight on consecutive days, more often there's a rotation. So the question is, what does the airline normally do with the plane between 10:00 PM one day and 6:00 AM the next (when a plane, if not the plane, is expected to be back in the gate at LGA)? Does Southwest just deadhead it all the way back to LGA? Do freight companies subcontract with airlines like Southwest to move boxes overnight on otherwise deadhead flights? Does the plane stay in Sea-Tac and is used for another flight number (possibly the reverse route)? Does the crew deadhead to a maintenance hub? All of the above?
EDIT: This question might be similar to the mentioned duplicate but I think it's more specific. I'm asking, more or less, how an aircraft used to operate a route that takes it across the country during daylight hours is typically "reset" so that it can fly that route again.
The assumption, of course, is that the plane does fly that route again on some cyclic schedule, which may itself be wrong; a look at the tail numbers available for WN3223 shows that none of the aircraft used for that route in the past 4 days have flown it again in that same time period, despite the planes used for older flights having ample opportunity to make it back to LGA for another run. So, I think my answer, at least for Southwest's routing model, is "the plane spends the night at SEA, then is sent on a new route number the next day, which may have nothing in common with WN3223 nor get the plane back in a situation to run WN3223 again".
Airlines running non-stop long-hauls probably have a more static schedule; an A380 might fly from Dubai to DFW, then turn around and fly right back, and that one route may be the only thing the plane is scheduled to do for weeks at a time.

possible duplicate of On how many routes an aircraft is used on a typical day?

This will vary by airline and route. Often, the plane just sits at the gate overnight and serves a new flight from the same airport the next morning. In other cases, the plane just keeps flying pretty much constantly, such as in the case of aircraft that fly inter-continental routes (where they're often only on the ground for a few hours, then turn around and head back to their home hub.) That also sometimes happens with trans-continental routes, where a red-eye segment is flown overnight, usually from the West coast to the Eastern U.S. In my experience, though, SWA tends not to fly red-eyes.

I would suggest you to reword the question so that it addresses only that specific case and so avoids being a duplicate or overly broad.

I thought "deadheading" referred to non-revenue movement of pilots (e.g., flying them from airport A to airport B in the cabin of a regular flight), rather than of aircraft...

Deadheading is rarely done because it is a non-revenue movement.
The most common use of deadheading (that is, flying the aircraft empty) is done for maintenance runs.
At the end of a scheduled route, the plane is parked at the last destination.  Sometimes, the next flight around uses the plane (if the route can be serviced by the aircraft).
Typically, airlines try to "park" their planes at their hub locations (where they have favorable landing and parking fees) rather than leave the aircraft at another airport.
Flight operations and planning make sure the aircrafts are maximized on revenue movements.
To give you an example - the shortest scheduled commercial flight for the A380 is Dubai - Kuwait (EK857); and the return flight Kuwait - Dubai (EK858).
The inbound aircraft on the flight yesterday (A6-EOH) was inbound from Perth to Dubai; and then flew to Kuwait and then back to Dubai. The next day (July 1st), the same aircraft is scheduled for SFO. (See the flight log at flightradar24).

The assumption that certain aircraft remain on certain routes is wrong.
Airlines try to spread the individual 737 amongst all 737 routes operated by the airline. Primarily this is due to maintenance. If a particular aircraft flew lots of short routes all the time, it would need maintenance a lot quicker than another 737 that stuck to the longer flights (because most maintenance is based on flight cycles, not flight hours). This can create headaches for the maintenance schedulers, which can be avoided if all aircraft in the fleet fly roughly the same amount of cycles per month.
So basically, it is very likely that the aircraft would sit overnight in Seattle, possibly undergoing some minor maintenance, before flying out to any destination in the morning, unrelated to the previous leg.

This is partially true. For airframes, maintenance is mostly based on cycles but for engines, it is mostly based on hours. It is more accurate to say that airlines maximize maintenance time for both by attempting to align hour based and cycle-based maintenance events so that they occur at the same time. An aircraft that is nearing its hour based maintenance limits will be shifted to shorter flights to accumulate cycles. If near its cycle limit it will be shifted to longer flights to accumulate hours. This is, of course, assuming the aircraft will meet the route requirements.


text:
Should I log flying lessons from the start?
I've recently started taking flying lessons and was wondering if I should begin logging my flying hours immediately?
I'm aware there are minimum hours for each license certification, so I'm assuming I should be noting down my flight time right from the start but my instructor hasn't really said anything about it yet.

Yes. You're paying money for it. The instructor will be happy to provide extra hours instruction :-).

Yes, you should be logging from the start. Now for the first few lessons, it'd be ok to not have your own logbook yet, but you should get one. Hopefully your instructor has kept his up to date, and can build your logbook in terms of flight times since you started.

Thanks! Do you have any advice regarding a specific logbook? I was looking at these: http://www.skylines.com.au/category/106/flight-crew

I've got 2, different brands/designs, don't have a favorite. Depends on how high you're planning to pursue it as well, if you're just going to get a Private certificate logging after you get there isn't as important... but to get hired by an airline logging becomes far more important. Ask your instructor or others around various shops about pros/cons to the various designs for your local requirements for what's needed to be logged.

Start keeping an electronic logbook in parallel with your paper one. I can name two students of mine whose paper logbooks were stolen when their car was broken into, and who had to rebuild them from scratch.

@MarkyMark Pretty much any logbook will work. I like the Jeppesen "Professional Pilot Logbook", and ASA's "Standard Pilot Log" is also a good choice (many instructors like the latter because of the generous "remarks" space to write in lesson information). Electronic logbooks are an option too, but many of us like having the physical paper book.

As has been mentioned you should log hours as soon as you start flying. All training hours with a CFI count towards your license, if you are paying for those lessons, you should log them. As for books, also as mentioned there are a few kinds out there but if you are starting with your PPL a basic log book will suffice. There are also many paid, online services that come in the form of tablet/smartphone apps that are now FAA accepted as official logs (and your instructor an even sign them digitally). This is a nice solution as you don't have to worry about your data getting lost. I will personally be moving to this soon (when I start my instrument training).
Side note: if you have an iPad or iPhone there are lots of cool flight apps out there that are now legal replacements for paper maps, although you should still carry a paper or second digital back up.

Although great answer, can you have a reference for FAA accepted as official logs? According to my knowledge, FAA does not tell you how to log the time, but just to log it.

The FAA requires the instructor to sign off on the time. Older versions of the application had no way of doing this. They now allow the instructor to sign on the screen making it (as conveyed to me) an official log. I guess in the past you could print it out and have them sign it. It also allows for endorsements to be tracked and signed for. I will try and look for more info on what makes them "official" now while they were not previously.

As I'm in Australia I have to follow CASA regulations on this. CAR 5.51 requires a physical logbook, though printouts from an app are acceptable. I'll try both out.

Yes you should whether you are PIC or not, solo or dual.

Assuming you are flying in an FAA "controlled" area, you "must document and record the following time [...] : (1) Training and aeronautical experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate, rating, or flight review of this part." (FAR §61.51(a)).
Now this is for you, but your instructor should have a look at FAR §61.189(a), where it says: "A flight instructor must sign the logbook of each person to whom that instructor has given flight training or ground training".
So, you don't have to log the time, if you don't want it to count to your training, but your instructor is required to sign your logbook if he gives you any flight training.
For every day life I would say this should be interpreted as:
Yes you have to log your flight time when you train for a license!


text:
How can I correctly calculate fuel for a Cessna 152?
I'm learning to fly in a C152 and I've found the fuel calculation to be a little ambiguous. Based on information from my instructor, Internet and the Cessna 152 Information Manual (1980), I've home cooked the following formula and wanted to run it by the community for some verification.
I hope this is an appropriate use of this forum and please excuse my newb-ness. Here's my formula:
Fuel Required =
    5.6L unusable +
    5L run-up and taxi +
    24L/hour flight (rich) +
    18L (45 minute) reserve

Based on this formula, a one hour lesson conducted in the training area and below 3,000 feet AMSL requires a minimum of 52.6 litres in the tanks, calculated as follows:
5.6L unusable + 5L run-up & taxi + 24L flight + 18L reserve = 52.6L total

Or 26.3L in each tank. Since we're measuring fuel by the surprising method of dipping a stick in the tank, I'm realistically looking for around 25L per tank, and maybe topping it up to 30 per tank to be on the safe side.
Is this correct and reasonable?

Hi Marky Mark, which jurisdiction do you fly in to apply a 45min reserve and use the metric system? (Or is it just the Cessna being a Reims-Cessna?)

@SentryRaven It's a US made Cessna. The manual is in US customary units, but I converted the fuel volumes from gallons to litres since I'm not in the US.  The reserve time was given to me by my instructor.

I should also add that fuel here is sold by the litre. Hence the need to convert.

@SentryRaven, the information in his profile (location and previous questions) indicate Australia

@Pondlife Thanks! I should have used two more brain cells and looked there myself. :P

I'm in Australia and the airport is YMMB. It's a mid-size GA airport in Melbourne, and home of the aero club.

The short answer is: Yes, your calculation is reasonable.
Fuel consumption values are not an exact science, they are average values and rounded in many cases or based on pilot experience. Using 24L/hr in your example for traffic patterns is the right assumption, as you will most likely remain in rich configuration. Even if you lean a bit within the pattern, you would not gain enough fuel efficiency to offset these 24L/hr.
Your 5L run-up and taxi obviously depends on the airport you are based at or use the formula at. If this value was your calculation for a smaller airfield, you might need to adapt your formula when flying to larger regional airports or airports with high-traffic, where your taxi time could be significantly longer.
Be reasonable however with topping up your values. Going from 52.6L to 60L is the equivalent of 5.3KG, which you will need to consider in your weight and balance calculation.

Normally, the practice in my experience is to fill the tanks in all cases to minimize the situations in which fuel starvation would be possible. For this reason, in the United States most trainers are rented wet. Exact fuel calculations usually are only relevant when flying cross country, and even then using generous reserves is a wise practice. During a lesson there are usually lots of unplanned activities, like the ole 30 minute run-up, waiting on the taxiway to take off behind 3 other aircraft that have some kind of problem, and in-flight distractions, so cutting it close on fuel is a bad idea.
A second issue is that if you fill the tanks only for what you need, any additional rentals will each have to fill the tanks, too, which can cause delays and throw off the rental schedule. For example, let's say the C152 is rented 4 times that day. If each pilot only filled the tanks for what he/she needed, then the fuel truck would have to come 4 times. Sometimes it takes a while for the fuel truck to arrive. If you need to taxi to a pump, that is another delay.
For all of these reasons, the normal practice for a student is to fill the tanks. If you are the owner/operator of the aircraft, you may choose to parsimoniously load the fuel you absolutely require, and save some money, but it does not sound from your post as though this is the case.
IMPORTANT CAVEAT: Overweight
If the aircraft would be overweight if you were to fill the tanks, then the above advice obviously cannot be followed. In that case, assuming it is a rental, the logical thing to do is two computations: your estimated need (which are already doing), and the maximum possible. If the need is greater than the maximum possible, you will need to change your flight plan. If the maximum is significantly greater than the need (enough for two or more lessons), then you should fill to the maximum, so that the next student does not have fill the tank, too. If the maximum is only moderately over the need, and the next student will have to fill it anyway, then you may as well fill it just to your calculated need.
As far as your calculations themselves are concerned, they seem right, aside from the use of the evil French units of measure.

OP is asking for correct methodology, not your particular experience in renting planes.


text:
Do airlines weigh passengers and baggage before loading the aircraft?
I'm aware of some aircraft that have systems to calculate weight and balance.  For those aircraft that don't have such systems, how does the pilot know they are within weight and balance limits?

While I'm not a pilot, I think it goes along these lines:

Airlines typically assume a value for passengers depending on gender and age. This distribution in the cabin will typically be quite random and a little variation does not do any damage.
Baggage however is weighed on the scales at check in. Each bag is
normally scanned as it is passed onto the plane, so that they know
where is bag is located. The values are then passed onto the pilots
who are able to work out that the numbers are ok. Sometimes there are preferences to load up bags in a certain way for fuel issues, so this is very important to make sure this is still resonable.

These values are then plugged into computers or worked out manually on a paper loadsheet to make sure they are good and within limits.
In fact the weight systems you are referring to are quite unusual I think, see this question.

For commercial airliners this is generally how it's done - standard/assumed passenger weights, and an actual weight for baggage. It's worth noting however that some airlines operating smaller aircraft ("at least one" - Samoa Air) do actually weigh passengers and baggage (and in Samoa Air's case, adjust your ticket price accordingly).

hmm, bags scanned as they're loaded? Hardly. Observed a lot of aircraft loading at major airports, and most often they're just tossed into the next available hold space (of course containerised and palletised luggage may well be weighed for even distribution before loading in the containers, but there too a typical density is likely assumed and just the entire container weighed).]

@jwenting i've seen multiple documentaries where they scan the bags at some collection point or right before the plane, and i'm very much convinced it's to measure weight, as well as to know that the bag got onboard for security.  http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID18134/images/zWSJ_-_Scanning_Luggage_Tag.jpg

@MikeFoxtrot - I'm pretty sure the scanning of each bag is almost purely for tracking, making sure it gets on the right plane and is moved from plane to plane properly (and if it doesn't, figuring out where it ended up). Destination is more important to the loading throwers than relative weight; the bags that will stay with the plane the longest get loaded first, and the ones that must be unloaded at the plane's next stop go in last.

@KeithS see this video.